anthropogeny

Found this email to myself, buried in an inbox. Not let’s see where it grows…

Essentially, you might say there are three options: planting good seeds, planting bad seeds, or planting no seeds

we can choose to plant no seeds as we go through our lives—relying completely on good fortune to always befall us

Humans were not agriculturally structured, this is one of the several intermingling reasons why we’ve needed to technologize ourselves so heavily. We’ve had to develop methods to keep track of loads of data that we can’t possibly store effectively in our brains. This leads me to my next point, which is that if we are to sow seeds that are negative, that are meant to harm other organic life forms, particularly humans but all others would be included, well there’s a very good chance we will forget we even sowed that seed. Whether it’s a physical seeding or some idea or plot line we’ve put forth as an act of subterfuge, unless we are highly trained in managing and data tracking our negative efforts, they are likely to end up numbering we ourselves as the victims. Our proximity to them because of their initiation already puts us in danger, and our primitive (as a compliment) brains are not meant for such nonsense besides.

—
“Naming the things that are absent breaks the spell of things that are”
-Paul Valery

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Most individuals have a plurality of sides to them that are deeply flawed—missing qualities paired alongside with grand over-compensations that would have others in “the normal range” feeling vacant and flawed by comparison. These flaws are constantly revealed to the therapist and personality analyst types among us because an individual is rarely whole on their own; a conclusion these professionals are usually blind to is that an individual is an idiosyncratic puzzle piece that must have vulnerabilities and additional capacities to fit in with a more complete picture, albeit a large family or tribe. Lacking this tribe to fit in with is the great flaw, for tribe-lessness is the great disease and a puzzle that we seem farthest from solving, for truly we need others to complete us.

Like this:

The wonders of a sustaining frugivorian lifestyle cannot be overstated as far as I am concerned. To have perfect food ready-made that nature intended for us as we meandered through different lands, is quite a utopia.

Fast Forward to Fast Food. However, we are no where in sight of such a place, yet I think a proof that the frugivorian lifestyle is what was ecosystemically intended for us is in the human inclination given the choice towards ready-packaged foods or fast food restaurants. We are instinctively built to grab something and go, a situation long predating the current rush of modernity where we may feel forced to get the quickest source of digestible energy and go. After the long millennia of toil over a stove, which some have come to enjoy with a passion myself not withstanding (blood type difference between this group and myself, an O-Negative?), others like myself were more than ready to have someone else make their food (until my digestive system broke and I had to rebuild it with a ketogenic-GAPS diet). Packaged food doesn’t carry the same liberation nor the same nutritional benefits (nor the seed spreading service to the food provider) that it would have in primal times, but it still is the going through a motion that connects us with a deep genealogy.

Littering. Whether it be the waste products from the food or our own waste, there is also a human inclination towards littering then and now (¿and possession-less-ness?) that would be on the back end of the equation. Now there is a real problem with litter because of its non-organic or anti-organic nature, but in the times when fast food was a fruit, whatever wasn’t eaten, or whatever wasn’t digested, would be readily reabsorbed and digested by the rest of the ecosystem along our trails. We would’ve been happily free from the burden of minding useless possessions, quite a turn of affairs from where we are now. Well distributed compostables by the human vector and activator would have been quite stewardly.

It’s a long way back (forward), but the fruit of our labor will taste unlike anything that the package of civilization can now offer us!

subtitle: Boredom to Motivate Human Migration
[MEME to be associated “Nomads, because we were happy”]

Boredom, it is assumed, is a fairly universal, recognizable, and linguified term across all modern cultures. If we inspect it as an emotion that has arisen because it offered some survival advantage, what is it’s utility? It tells us to leave a particularly nice area where we may have settled and to keep moving on. This may be way off the true reasons, but perhaps not. A hypothesis relating to boredom through depression, which is quite similar in many of its manifestions, is remedied in some people after ECT, which is well known to cause memory loss. ECT destroys the normalizations imposed by a repetitive landscape. Instead of moving the body and brain to a new location, ECT removes connections within the brain to the stagnant life. Everyday life can become more interesting, albeit a lot more challenging where normalizations and a good memory are requisite; this is why ECT is usually not a true solution but a misguided transferrence that treats a symptom.

Dogs, sedentary man’s best friend, offer an illuminating contrast. Though we cannot ask dogs directly, presumably they do not experience boredom in the flavor or intensity that we do. This relative lack of their ability to feel it would be bound up with their territorial nature. Boredom tells us we have worn out our welcome, and because our loyalties would all lie with our fellow band of humans rather than with a specific place, we could move without any feelings of betrayal to counter balance against boredom. Dogs on the other hand are very loyal to their specific land, and boredom of that land would compete within them and not be adaptive.

We speak of domesticating dogs, as with other animals, but the contrary is probably closer to the truth: dogs domesticated us, or were a greater influence than many would like to think in our own domestication.

2016 Add ins – The need to keep moving (must wander) would logically be linked to our predisposition as a hunted species, and boredom would be an instinctual way of deep rooting this need were we not to have intellectually arrived at it. The guerilla mentality runs deep in us, and it explain to me another lifelong personal trend: I’ve had lots and lots of chase dreams in my sleep—it’s the majoritarian theme of the dreams I can recall, and they’ve always been quite adventurous and usually more fun and thrilling than actually scary. There was always a comfort in the chase dreams that I was always at least one step ahead of my pursuer(s), which were only sometimes of human type. However, it is noteworthy that fear would also be an emotion that would run deep in us, which would give explanation to how fear is so often used to manipulate us. It is a evolutionary vulnerability to say the least.

—title: Working Towards Extinction (meme)

—title: In Defense Of Hypocrisy: May We Should On Ourselves

“It’s better to should all over other people as you do on to yourself”

“A world without hypocrites is a world without ideas”

Succumbing to the rebukes of a society that would attack an incomplete but evolving praxilogical action when it is vulnerable and in its infancy, is precisely the vast conundrum facing us that stifles and has us stifling our own liberation from many an oppression. Whether we are the “hypocrite” or the one shouting out “hey hypocrite!”, we are choosing to intervene in a process to which we were previously outside of and now deciding to attempt to stop. Sadly for us all, the process in to which we are choosing to add toil to by calling the purveyor “hypocritical”, is often a process which has as part of it something we would want to see realized. The part that follows the normative “should” that the hypocritical speaker was articulating is quite often a beautiful and imaginative idea for a better path to go down. However, too too quickly and too often we fall in to the trap of frustration with our situations and attack and belittle one of our own who shares a common dream. Let’s take an example before any more general ruminations on this matter:

“There should be more farmers” is said by someone who is not a farmer, and it can obviously be attacked as a hypocritical statement. “Actions speak louder than words” might be a reply of someone in the audience, but I would counter that in a society so deeply invested in the symbolic realm as ours that speaking certain words (especially ones that shine light on an uncomfortable reality) is the loudest of actions. The backstory to this farmer advocate and speaker is that s/he might have severe economic or health restrictions, or are time-bound elsewhere. I would urge us to admire that the person even goes out in to the public sphere and braves to speak such a prescription, and tries to influence the minds of their fellow humans (rather than yield and be quiet, giving the corporate media even more uninterrupted time to shout their propaganda that will instead fill all of our minds). Perhaps by saying it out loud and prescribing such an ideal, the person will naturally move closer to realizing it themselves as well. If one always waited to be the perfect example of such-and-such a thing, we would all always be waiting.

Hypocrisy is a necessary stage in the growth process. Unrealized ideals, which are a great part of the human condition, should and could all be labeled as hypocritical, but I don’t think they should have attached to them the negative, pejorative label of hypocrite. Ideas often need to be voiced in their ideal state before they are immediately rushed in to. The human evolutionary adaptation of a grand capacity for ideas will come to include (depending on the person) many ideas that are unthinkably horrific that fortunately we never go on to realize. One might even say out loud “should kill all…”, but then are reprimanded for speaking of violent things; but this is a good thing, for now the person can see a perspective from their audience that shows them that their idea is a faulty one, and at this point no one has yet been hurt or killed by its realization. Calling them a hypocrite in this manner would only serve to cajole them forward—it is more important to be wary and cautious but also firmly replying that their ideas are bad ones. So, too, when someone presents good ideas that they have done little to realize, the ideas should be praised as good ones. Perhaps later on if there is some stagnancy in this “idea stage”, one can try to move the person along towards realization, but a space and time for the evolution of a theory to find its grounding in practice is necessary if any complex and meaningful ideas are given a chance to root in to our world.

We must evolve the new out of the old, which means that despite what newness we hope to usher in with great haste, we will still be mired in much oldness that is stuck on us like clothes, making us appear to be dressed differently than we speak: voices of hypocrisy. For those who are just paying lip service to ideas that they make no clear pathway to ever realize, the word “hypocrite” is reserved. So not all hypocrisies ought to be glossed over all of the time, but hypocrisy enforcement should not be a reactive principle of action which is used in a knee-jerk fashion. It is a concept that should be flexibly understood and applied with a full understanding of the evolving context in which words and ideas unfold alongside—but often before—the things with which they are about, unfold too.

title: Contrarian Thoughts On The Origins Of Our Domestication (rough outline and collection of notes)
Working Title: Conquering Civilization

Mostly in reaction to those who rely for their theories of the past purpotedly on the ideas from Chalice and the Blade, a work I will probably never make the time to read (but perhaps have read to me on audiobook?)

Responses to the presentations of the arguments unloaded on me after declaring that I thought humans were best suited for nomadic lifestyle:

Home is where the people are no longer. Home is now a house, as fulfillment of the sedentary.

the idealistic idea that out of sitting comes sharing (a sharing circle), forgets that for a land to be presumed to be shared, beforehand it must be claimed. Rousseau was mostly right when he said “this is mine” is the origin of inequality, but it wasn’t spoken with the mouth, it was spoken with the body that ceased to migrate in favor of the sedentary.

the empiric (empire-ing?) people, the conquers, were the vector to spread the disease of civilization, but were not the disease itself. Sedentary people were the disease, the adaptation to a climate in which required them to overuse natural resources outside of themselves without fully returning the surplus, but hoarding it. Hoarding it, possibly, was not out of greed, but out of the lack they had by in so being sedentary created in their ecological surroundings. They created a structure (an infrustructure, if you will)

the stagnant living arrangement that lacked a constant source of food required that these people HAD to develop new sources of foods. Sitting around made them impoverished both in body/mind and in food store. They had to develop new enzymes (that correlate roughly with blood type indicators), whether they were in a moderately seasoned river valley or a harsher climate with winter die-backs and deciduous dominated plant life.
It wasn’t that they wanted to cultivate crops…

standing in great contrast to the notion that civilization is called the beginning of great surplus, these original settlers didn’t expand their palette to attain new foods and expand the omnivoric repetoir through blood adaptation that enhanced their ability to eat food. They HAD to adapt or die because their lack of a sustainable diet, one that could not be provided were they to not continue moving and following herds and frequenting diverse food spots

agriculture and empires are about innate land not being sufficient for the human animal.

—title: Awake By Nightmare (meme)

—title: The Naked Capitalist (poem)

Remove the consumerleave the capitalist nakedwithout us self-enslavingthe capitalist can’t make it

Buy wiselydon’t buy wiserwisdom as commodityprofit to the miser

—title: Lpha Male

The lpha male(s) is the one that will come to lead a people out of a trapped territory. He makes the hard but real choice to not consolidate power (both power within himself and power over his group) but to spread it across a trajectory that is directionally tending to the place and future that needs to be bridged to. This is sacrificial stance is in stark contrast to an alpha male, who is a conservative force that rules through violence and tradition and the passivity of others; the lpha male is a dominant but not dominating figure who is a natural leader, not a throne room whore.

Such figures are what the embattled and trapped human need, not for a taste of a quasi-fascism, but precisely as an escape route where fascism has already compromised the minds and bodies of many.

And the lpha male need not be a male, either—in any new or traditional sense—and is just as likely of another gender, or a spirit shared across many persons.

Trees fruiting and providing hominids with their needs in ephemeral fashion would have been one of the many wondrous dimensions that existed in the backdrop of our ancestor’s primal experience in the forests. If edible fruit were on the tree or on the ground, they were eaten, and if there were no immediate availability, the group moved on, probably forgetting all but the vaguest ideas of that particular time and locale. The intervening time when the hominids were off exploring other realms, keeping their migration and eating rhythm constant but with alterations in food flavors and colors, trees would continue on through the other portions of their seasonal cycles, fulfilling their own oscillations of generation and reproduction. Because this relationship had to be sustainable—just like with any ecosystemic relationship—the efficiency of hominid migratory trajectories had to coincide with the harvestable time ranges for a given locale and they would usually land on a place that had some food to keep them going. In this way, hominids were the spatially moving targeteers aiming at a stationary but temporally dynamic target. Symbiosis could be maintained as long as hominids had a broad enough range to spread out their needs for immediate and ephemeral food sources, or if they were in small enough groups to not need too wide of a range (perhaps the latter possibility is where some original conceptual dissonance between trees and humans could have emerged).

Why Did This Relationship Sour?

Above is painted a crude but sufficient description of millions of years when hominids and protohominids migrated in seasonal sync with an adequately large territory to produce a sustainable pattern and enduring ecosystem; they wouldn’t have had a ripe possibility to conceptually analyze a single tree down to a banal object. It must be supposed that changes happened to disrupt or alter hominid migration rhythms to where they were now stranded on a new island formed by natural disaster, or a drought or year of great plenty concentrated them in a smaller or restricted area; or, another supposition is that the proto-humans chose to stay in a particular area (because of cultural developments?). Whatever the reason(s), and whether they be listed here or not, occurring alone or in concert, there eventually emerged enduring changes in how humans came to regard trees in quite a different light, which at base was resultant from new rhythms in the interactions between the humans and the forests.

Specific individual trees, as well as specific tree species, would have been normalized in the human experience like never before. With a more localized (less nomadic) living situation, we would have been in proximity to the trees for a longer part of their seasonal cycle, and would now come to behold uninteresting (or too interesting, to be explained later) slow changes in trees when they weren’t providing us with fruit. Those parts of the human mind that ask “what more can I get out of this?” would be activated, wondering what other uses a tree has since they are frustratingly slow in offering their fruits again. Normalization would allow trees to become deleveraged, banal objects, offering themselves to creative manipulation. A tree becomes its wood, its bark, and its possibilities as dead wood to grow fruiting mushroom bodies; a tree also becomes magical, seeming to have some spirit that causes something seemingly unchanging to change. A tree caste system might have emerged, where privileged trees (those seemingly more productive for human ends) would be favored, fostered, even worshiped and bestowed with qualities that weren’t actual. This unbalancing comes to show the twofold danger with this new unsustainable relationship to trees: trees would not only be analytically regarded sometimes as the sum of their parts, they also might have parts added on to their whole, imposing a foggy dogmatism and cultural evolution that would retard and stray humans further from an appropriate ecosystemic relationship to trees.

Summarization of the Problem

By a higher dose of interaction with specific trees that allowed their normalization/banalization by the concept-heavy humans, humans would come to add mediations to the observably slower plants around them that would come to blockade an accurate relationship. Trees would have both an elevated and diminished role in the minds of the humans who would dwell for long times in their presence, ranging from deities to mere timber resources. Forests could not be left to their own devices, as we see now with either preservation (including the non-passive interaction of burn suppression and “pest” removal) management, or with deforestation in to timber and building sites.

Wandering Where To Go

There are no forests unmapped, left to vague enchantment, as distinctly different from the interaction of our deep ancestors. There are options to not look at the maps, and not be entwined with all the forays of human industry and knowledge and to allow the original and unmediated enchantment enter when going on an adventure. I think we all still have the capacity to feel this as evidenced by the distinctly different feelings of being in a whole new place. To reclaim our minds from the doldrums of banalization, we ought to keep travelling before normalization sets in—movement is its own end… endlessness is its own end! If we step back, and keep stepping back, we can allow the rest of life on Earth to heal itself and then we will find simultaneously many of our wounds—physical and psychological—to be healing themselves too. A sedentary lifestyle for such a powerful, non-sedentary animal as humans, puts in peril the whole project of life on Earth.

Like this:

Mammals are the most dehydrated when they wake from a long sleep and are thus the most in need of liquids to be their tonic. Could it be that the white noise from running water calms us in to a restful sleep not just because it might remind us of our deeply nurturing time spent in our mother’s womb—as is commonly suggested—but also as a primary survival trait that encourages us to rest when we are in earshot of a life-replenishing water source. The vibrations of the moving water grounds and relaxes us after a long day of adventuring abroad to places that might not have had drinking water possibilities; it’s lacking in an environment keeps us more on edge to truly rest as our bodies sense that they need to be in proximity to a water source. In the quiet of the early night when we are still alert and on the move, we are hunting not for the sounds of prey, but for the sounds of tomorrow’s water.

Just wanted to point out what I thought was another example of the tremendous foresight built in to our instincts, which is in contrast to the notion that has instincts painted as lowly and banal “animal” reflexes and reactions.